There are two means to give an effect to a foreign court
decision in Turkey, namely the recognition of a foreign judgment
and the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment according
to the International Private and Civil Procedure Law No. 5718 (the
The mere recognition of a foreign judgment does not enable such
court decision to be enforced in Turkey compulsorily but provides
the acknowledgement of the same of having the power of a final
judgment. In other words, if the foreign judgment is only
recognized by the Turkish courts, the said decision, according to
Article 58 of the Code;
may be taken into account as a
definite and final judgment in another case brought before the
Turkish courts and that case may be dismissed with prejudice;
may be taken into account as a
conclusive evidence in another case brought before the Turkish
may give right to the related person
to have the respective authority in Turkey make an administrative
As is stated above, a foreign court decision cannot be enforced,
if such decision is only recognized in Turkey. In order for such
decision to have an effect to be executed in Turkey, it must be
held to be enforced in addition to being recognized by the Turkish
Courts. In this respect, Article 50 of the Code No.5718 states that
a judgment in a civil case, which has been given by a foreign court
and has become finalized according to the law of the country where
the respective court is situate, can only be enforced, if the
competent Turkish Court rules for the recognition and enforcement
of the said foreign court decision. For the recognition and
enforcement of a foreign court judgment in Turkey, the following
conditions must be fulfilled together:
1. There should be (a) a reciprocity agreement
between Turkey and the country in which the decision is rendered or
(b) a legal provision or "de facto" application which
allows the enforcement of the decisions rendered by the Turkish
2. The decision of the foreign court should be
"final" in accordance with the laws applied in the
country in which the court is competent. For the purposes of this
clause; "final" means there is not any legal remedy which
may be pursued against such decision of the court such as appeal,
application to upper court etc.
3. The decision of the foreign court should not
be rendered in relation with a matter which is within the exclusive
competence of the Turkish courts.
4. The decision of the foreign court should not
be against the Turkish public order. The essential matter here is
that it is not required for the content of such decision to be in
compliance with the Turkish public order. Merely, the consequences
that may arise as a result of the enforcement of such decision in
Turkey should not constitute a contradiction with the Turkish
5. The court should have enabled the other
party to use its right to defend itself before the court.
We would like you also take a note that when the foreign
judgment is brought before the Turkish courts by demanding the
recognition and enforcement of the same, the court will review
whether the conditions above are fulfilled or not. For that reason,
the Turkish courts can never research whether a foreign judgment is
legal and rightful. Therefore, once the Turkish courts come to the
conclusion that the conditions mentioned above are completely
fulfilled, then it must hold for the recognition and enforcement of
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Avoiding double recovery where there are separate claims in respect of the same injuries. The situation where a Claimant suffers an accident and alleges negligence in his subsequent treatment is not an unusual one.
The High Court of Justice in London has handed down a landmark decision concerning the recovery of third party funding costs in the case of Essar Oilfield Services Ltd v Norscot Rig Management PVT Ltd.
The substantive claims brought by the claimant against the defendant failed (on the whole), despite the defendant having been found to have acted dishonestly.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).